<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (10) TMI 24 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22561</link>
    <description>A Government company that took over an undertaking remained liable for pre-existing income-tax arrears and statutory interest because the acquisition scheme transferred the undertaking together with its liabilities. The relief notification under the Kerala Relief Undertakings Act operated only for the statutory period and did not suspend the Income-tax Act; it could not extinguish the liability after expiry. Section 5 of the acquisition law exempted only liabilities arising from contravention of law, while section 6 vested the undertaking&#039;s rights and liabilities in the transferee. Section 7(4) did not exclude tax dues merely because they were not listed in the schedule or balance-sheet, so the recovery notice was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:48:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 24 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22561</link>
      <description>A Government company that took over an undertaking remained liable for pre-existing income-tax arrears and statutory interest because the acquisition scheme transferred the undertaking together with its liabilities. The relief notification under the Kerala Relief Undertakings Act operated only for the statutory period and did not suspend the Income-tax Act; it could not extinguish the liability after expiry. Section 5 of the acquisition law exempted only liabilities arising from contravention of law, while section 6 vested the undertaking&#039;s rights and liabilities in the transferee. Section 7(4) did not exclude tax dues merely because they were not listed in the schedule or balance-sheet, so the recovery notice was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>